Only 4 resources. Good or bad?

[ecsunotos]

why exactly would it be more easy?

to collect and to manage 4 types resources definitely far more easy than to collect and to manage 7 types of resources

I find it amazing how people say it makes the game easier, less strategic when we've not seen how the game works.

Just imagine the extreme condition that the type of resource reduced to just only one type : gold.
What's your strategy to collect and manage just one type of resource such like that ?

Your strategy will be only : If you see gold on the map, take it ! If you see gold mine on the map, flag it !
How to manage that gold you've collect ? x of gold to build this, y of gold to build that, and the remaining gold to build other.

If there are 4 types of resources, then it'll be far more difficult to collect and manage them to build your kingdom.
You've to collect and flag mine of each of the type of the resource. To manage them to build every single building of your kingdom, you've to think and make calculation
to alocate and provide each of type of the resource when they are needed.

And what about 7 type of resources ?? It'll be far far more complicated and difficult to collect, manage, alocate, and provide each type of resource every time they are
needed.

So ? 7 is more complicated and have a higher strategically point of view than 4.

[ThunderTitan]

So complicated in fact that us less "good" Heroes playing gamers shouldn't be forced to do it...

[LongDarkBlues]

So ? 7 is more complicated and have a higher strategically point of view than 4.

But it doesn't work that way because different factions required different amounts of different resources - so certain mines were less strategically useful to one player than another. This eliminates that unbalance. We've yet to have any sense of how that plays out - I certainly hope it increases resource competition and earlier player interaction.

[ecsunotos]

So ? 7 is more complicated and have a higher strategically point of view than 4.

But it doesn't work that way because different factions required different amounts of different resources - so certain mines were less strategically useful to one player than another. This eliminates that unbalance. We've yet to have any sense of how that plays out - I certainly hope it increases resource competition and earlier player interaction.

Nice explanation. I'm getting into a new perception of this 4 resources issue.
I agree that it looks like developer wanna bring us to the new condition of resources management. It'll be more difficult in this area, a.k.a. increase resource competition :
- Whole player have to compete intensively, struggling to fulfil common resources ( cause there only 4 type of them )
- Area control of mine. Enemy no longer be able to control a mine just by giving flag it once, but the enemy hero should stay there day by day to collect resource produced in the mine.

I think player should hire more hero in order to keep controlling the mine

[ThunderTitan]

But it doesn't work that way because different factions required different amounts of different resources - so certain mines were less strategically useful to one player than another. This eliminates that unbalance. We've yet to have any sense of how that plays out - I certainly hope it increases resource competition and earlier player interaction.

Of course now mines will stop being useful once you have enough of them for a good resource flow, and you won't even be able to take the ones near the enemies castle anyway because of the control are thing.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

This isn't a change, this is a mutilation. The game has always had 7 resources right since the beginning. It is something that makes Heroes of Might and Magic what it is.

In games reducing the level of detail is nearly always a retrograde step, if a game is successful then it cannot be too detailed, to reduce detail then becomes in effect what I said a mutilation of the game.

Essentially what is more boring, 4 resources or 7 resources? 4 resources is more boring, it adds fewer colorful mines to might over etc. It makes the world more bland, more homogeneous. It reduces the level of strategic thought required and makes the game hence more dull.

There are plenty of ways to increase the strategy element regarding resources rather than making all towns the same resource wise and reducing the number of resources (although keeping the status quo is still preferable to reducing resource numbers).

1. Razing Mines. A player can elect to raze the mine to the ground. This makes it produce no resources whoever 'controls' it. This is useful as it allows you to deny resources to a conquering enemy that are particularly important to the enemy but not to you and makes raiding enemy resources an effective strategy.

Razed mines can be rebuilt for a cost in wood, ore and gold (for rare resource and gold mines), wood and gold (for ore mines) and gold only (for sawmills). But more damaging, to rebuild a mine requires the player to sacrifice a number of units representing the labour required.

The effect of this is to make it possible to destroy an enemy by harassing it's resource base, because the enemy must sacrifice troops and resources to rebuild them

2. Fortifying mines. A player can fortify a mine (including a razed mine) in order to retain control of it and keep it either intact or razed) and place heroes in any mine along with troops. Mine fortifications function like city fortifications.

3. More resources. Add special resources which are needed to support large armies and build units in the first place. The former effectively adds a support limit controlling the number of troops a player can field, a player is forced demobilize troops in excess of this limit after say a week.

[ThunderTitan]

But now we can just not think much about building stuff and we can just enjoy battles more... because you know the duel mode form H5 wasn't enough for people that would like to just play battles over and over again.

[parcaleste]

Oh, why I never count the gold as a "resource"...


Whatever.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But now we can just not think much about building stuff and we can just enjoy battles more... because you know the duel mode form H5 wasn't enough for people that would like to just play battles over and over again.

Is that sarcasm? People who just want to fight battles should be playing a different game, Heroes of Might and Magic is a 'strategy game' not a 'fighting game'.

[Kristo]

1. Razing Mines. A player can elect to raze the mine to the ground. This makes it produce no resources whoever 'controls' it. This is useful as it allows you to deny resources to a conquering enemy that are particularly important to the enemy but not to you and makes raiding enemy resources an effective strategy.

This sounds a lot like the Haunt spell from H2. I used it once in one game just to see what it did. It's not an effective strategy. All it does is increase the cost to you when you're strong enough to conquer another player's territory permanently. If you're going to use an enemy town at all, you're going to want those resources.

2. Fortifying mines. A player can fortify a mine (including a razed mine) in order to retain control of it and keep it either intact or razed) and place heroes in any mine along with troops. Mine fortifications function like city fortifications.

Can't you already do this? I thought you could leave troops behind to defend a mine you owned. Did they remove that feature for H5?

3. More resources. Add special resources which are needed to support large armies and build units in the first place. The former effectively adds a support limit controlling the number of troops a player can field, a player is forced demobilize troops in excess of this limit after say a week.

There was upkeep costs in the original King's Bounty, and then it disappeared. I'd love to try a Heroes game with upkeep. It's an effective tool for game balance. For example, just because you can afford to buy that big scary Dragon, you can't necessarily afford to keep him employed. I don't think you need a special resource for it though.

[ThunderTitan]

Is that sarcasm?

My sig wants you to figure it out yourself.

[Thorsson]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Of course 99% of people misunderstand that quote.

[Nelgirith]

Is that sarcasm? People who just want to fight battles should be playing a different game, Heroes of Might and Magic is a 'strategy game' not a 'fighting game'.

Isn't the most strategic part of this game ... the fights ? If you consider anything else in Heroes strategic, you sure are playing a different game than me.

[Elvin]

Strategy and tactics are hardly the same but in heroes you need them in equal measure. Besides.. the interesting part IS the battle.

[ThunderTitan]

Is that sarcasm? People who just want to fight battles should be playing a different game, Heroes of Might and Magic is a 'strategy game' not a 'fighting game'.

Isn't the most strategic part of this game ... the fights ? If you consider anything else in Heroes strategic, you sure are playing a different game than me.

NO... get a dictionary and look up tactics and strategy.

[Linky]

The fights in Heroes games are always pretty straightforward. The game is won / lost on the adventure map.

Having just four resources is probably a good thing. Simply slapping on extra resource types doesn't bring any added value. Additional resources bring with them a load of problems and complications. Here's some:

- It's more difficult to balance maps the more resources you have, because you have to have an equal measure of all resources available.
- If you have multiple resources and a faction only really focuses consuming some of them, you end up with excess resources that don't really have any purpose - all factions could just as well use the same resources in equal measure.
- If you have only a few resources that are tiered by rarity / purpose instead of by faction usage, it gives you more strategic options

I want to elaborate the last point with an example:
In HoMM3, Stronghold used crystals, Necromancers used mercury etc. Eveyrone used wood and ore and gold. There were really only three tiers of resources: Gold, General and Special. Mercury and Crystal mines were essentially of the same value. Depending on which castles you owned, you only had use for some of them though. This isn't really bring that much strategy into the game, it's more about chance and when you have a few different castles it doesn't really matter which special resources you have, since you most often are dependent on gold to produce the level 7 units.

Now, hopefully the new system instead has only four resources tiered by rarity, let's say Gold, General, Rare and Special, and all factions use all of these resources in similar ways. Now you can work out a strategy to cut your enemies' supplies of one of these resources and you know what effect it will have. If you have too many resources to manage and you don't know how your opponent uses up the resources, you can make fewer strategic choices than with this simpler system. Complexity doesn't mean strategic depth.[/list]

[Pitsu]

Besides.. the interesting part IS the battle.

If you leave out the story part of RPG maps and large open maps as they were in HoMM1-2. The role of battles has been constantly increasing with each new HoMM installment.

[Elvin]

Storyline goes without saying, I am simply commenting on a gameplay level.

[Dragon Angel]

Just passing by:

Sorry about not reading everything. Ten pages is quite a bit, and so as well sorry for repeating things already said, that I think I'll do, but I wanted to share my comment on this, as probably has come to be the most striking change on Heroes VI for me.

First impresson: ... must be a beta and not all resources are shown -- or maybe only resources you own are shown.

After seing mofre screens: ... yep it looks we are going to only four resources... but... what are they thinking!!?

From my starting position, I don't like it and I fear it might be a con to my enjoyement of the game , as it impacts some of the areas I like the most (I'll explain below). I underestand there may be pros, already commented here that will be more appealing to other players, but they maybe impact areas I do not care that much. So, we cannot please everyone, let's see:

The pros I see / hear:
>Better balance: This one I can agree (it is a simpler system, thus easier to balance), yet I do not neet perfect balance in Heroes, as I am not a "pro" competitive player... others may require it.
>Less dependance on randomness: Same as above and an age-old discussion: if you are a competitive-type, good. If you are not a tournament player, boooring...
>Less micromanagement:Not agreed. Resource collecting is automatic from mines, so no micro is involved here. An argument could be made for mills, but as they were essentialy random, resource tipe can not be involved.

The cons I see / hear:
>Less map variety: This is my main con. For a mapmaking-adventuring player like me, that wants to have different experiences on everymap, the available number of builidngs to be placed/found in a map and the difference between them is what makes heroes great.
Scrapping 3 resources means scrapping three types of mines, plus other asociated buildings, plus the diferent map layouts that 4 resources could offer: Resource distribution is a main factor of difference between maps in previous Heroes - are all 4 available? near? mid-distance? far? in own land or disputed land? if in disputed áreas: clustered or spread (are there 4 disputed areas, one specific to each resource, or are all resources spread in the diferent fight areas). All these variables give a great variety to maps, that with one single resource will be greatly reduced.
Additionally we have less things to "place" in the map... altough I hope we will receive some other things in exchange (Marzhin intervention will be great here ). But I sure do not want Heroes maps be reduced to booring Age of Wonders maps were the number of things you could 'do' was really few...
>Less economic strategy: It is a wait and see thing, but initially, it looks like. As said, you lose a variable in your early exploration-fights ¿should I get sulfur now or should I save forces to go for more heavily guarded crystal, that I need more?, or in your building/conquest choices ¿do I build marketplace now?. As with the variety subject, hope there are substitutive options.
>Less color: May sound silly... but resources made for quite a bit of the colorfulness of heroes games, that was in some way a trademark... and yes, I needed an extra con for balance

So, for the moment, I do not like the reduction of resources, and I see in it a dumbing-down on the "exploration / expansion" part of the game in order to enhance the balance of the "build / battle" part. Bad for me as I prefer the first part. I guess good for those who prefer the second.

[MattII]

Simply slapping on extra resource types doesn't bring any added value.

They've been in for 5 games now, they're not 'slapped on'.

- It's more difficult to balance maps the more resources you have, because you have to have an equal measure of all resources available.

Unless you're slapping down a load of random towns, then placing the right mines in the right places shouldn't be too hard.

- If you have multiple resources and a faction only really focuses consuming some of them, you end up with excess resources that don't really have any purpose - all factions could just as well use the same resources in equal measure.

[sarcasm]Ah, simplicity, you know, I don't know why they don't just give us two factions with three units in each faction, it would be so much easier to work with[/sarcasm]. That aside, there are any number of ways you could solve this, from different dwellings requiring different resources to good old market-trading.

- If you have only a few resources that are tiered by rarity / purpose instead of by faction usage, it gives you more strategic options

No, it gives you fewer strategic options, since you have fewer choices.

Necromancers used mercury etc.

Necromancers used a good deal of everything, just check here (right down the bottom)

...and when you have a few different castles it doesn't really matter which special resources you have, since you most often are dependent on gold to produce the level 7 units.

Which basically means that gold is the issue, it's too commonly used, squeezing out the other resources.

Now, hopefully the new system instead has only four resources tiered by rarity, let's say Gold, General, Rare and Special, and all factions use all of these resources in similar ways.

Nope, it's gold, two general and a rare or so they're telling us.

Now you can work out a strategy to cut your enemies' supplies of one of these resources and you know what effect it will have.

Right, so you can cut off his resources by taking his towns (no easier than before), or bankrupting yourself buying heroes.

If you have too many resources to manage and you don't know how your opponent uses up the resources, you can make fewer strategic choices than with this simpler system.

Well if you know what faction your opponent is, surely you should have a fair idea of how he's using his resources, and four resources doesn't work any better there than seven.

Complexity doesn't mean strategic depth.

No, but it allows for more strategic depth.